2018 (2) TMI 1352 - HC - Income Tax

RTI - information sought for related to allegations of corruption - verification of the affidavits filed by the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) disclosing their assets to the Election Commission - whether the information sought for by the respondent is excluded from the purview of the Act? - Held that - It is clear from the above that only such information which would (i) impede the process of investigation; (ii) impede the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, is exempted from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that any investigation is being conducted, which would be impeded by disclosure of the information sought for by the respondent. It is stated by CBDT that the Election Commission of India forwards the affidavits submitted by MPs and MLAs disclosing their assets for verification to CBDT. Such affidavits are forwarded by CBDT to the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) for verification and the outcome of such verification is shared directly by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) with the Election Commission of India. In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the information sought by the respondent pertains to allegations of corruption, as no such allegations have been made at any stage. The respondent had merely highlighted that the net wealth of certain MLAs and MPs had increased fivefold and the respondent had sought verification of the same in order to bring about a higher level of transparency. No specific or general allegations of corruption were advanced by the respondent. Thus, it is not possible to accept that the information as sought for by the respondent falls within the purview of the Act even though it emanates from the organization which is placed in the Second Schedule. In view of the above, the order passed by the CIC cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. However, it is clarified that in the event any citizen was to make an allegation of corruption, the information as sought by the respondent would not be excluded from the scope of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exclusion of information under Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
3. Verification of affidavits filed by Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly.
4. Applicability of the Act to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule.

Exclusion of Information under Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The judgment involved a dispute where the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the disclosure of information sought by the respondent, including photocopies of responses received from Director Generals of Income Tax (DGs). The petitioner, CBDT, argued that the information was excluded from the Act's purview under Section 24(1) since it emanated from the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation). The court analyzed Section 24(1) and concluded that information received from such organizations specified in the Second Schedule, like the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), falls within the exclusionary provisions of the Act. Therefore, the CBDT was justified in denying the information to the respondent based on this provision.

Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act:
The CBDT contended that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, which pertains to information that could impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders. However, the court noted that for information to be exempted under this section, it must impede an ongoing investigation. In this case, the court found no evidence of an ongoing investigation that would be impeded by the disclosure of the information requested by the respondent. The court clarified that the verification exercise conducted by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) did not constitute an investigation as contemplated under the Act.

Verification of Affidavits filed by Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly:
The judgment highlighted a controversy regarding the verification of affidavits filed by Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) disclosing their assets to the Election Commission. The respondent submitted a list of MPs and MLAs whose assets allegedly increased significantly, seeking verification. The court emphasized that the verification exercise by the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was indicative and not equivalent to a formal investigation. It differentiated between verification and investigation, stating that the former did not impede the process of investigation as defined under the Act.

Applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations specified in the Second Schedule:
The judgment interpreted Section 24(1) of the Act, which excludes certain organizations, including those specified in the Second Schedule, from the Act's provisions. While the CBDT was not listed under the Second Schedule, the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) was. The court ruled that information received from such organizations falls under the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1). However, it clarified that information related to corruption allegations and human rights violations would not be excluded under this provision, provided specific conditions were met.

In conclusion, the court set aside the CIC's order directing the disclosure of information sought by the respondent. It clarified that the information would not be excluded from the Act's scope if corruption allegations were made. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and their application to the specific case, ensuring clarity on the issues raised and the decision rendered.